I mean think about it on an evolutionary basis. Back in the 40's as your graph shows people were need more, people had to travel and suppliers were not as global. Now we have computers and emil, machines and robots replace expensive labor, there are cheap suppliers of manufacturing globally so it only stands to reason that wages are falling while profits are rising because there are some serious cost savings with the development of new technology.

I mean think about it on an evolutionary basis. Back in the 40's as your graph shows people were need more, people had to travel and suppliers were not as global. Now we have computers and emil, machines and robots replace expensive labor, there are cheap suppliers of manufacturing globally so it only stands to reason that wages are falling while profits are rising because there are some serious cost savings with the development of new technology.

Long story short, it's really bad for our economy. The people no longer have the money to buy enough goods to keep our economy running. We created artificial wealth (credit) but even that dried up. David Harvey's Crises of Captialism explains it best.

Not to mention the social implication of such great income inequality:

Even economically, all of those create unnecessary inefficiencies that weigh down the economy. Keynesian ditch-digging-and-refilling so to speak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by licence2kill

I think that's mostly correct. I think the best way to fix secular inequality is redistribution.

The way I see it there are two choices: Taxes (like Sweden) or Culture (like Japan). Both are corrective measures put in place to curb the natural income inequality that is inherent to markets. I prefer culture as there is less *****ing about it afterwords. Coercion or honor? I'll take honor.

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Good luck with that, the radical egalitarians won't stand for anything but plunder. Its a shame they don't see how similar they are to the French wack jobs that decided their best course of action was to lop of peoples heads en masse.

__________________--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick HenryI'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker techingWill soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts

Its a shame they don't see how similar they are to the French wack jobs that decided their best course of action was to lop of peoples heads en masse.

Which they? Proponents of redistribution of wealth or radical egalitarians? In what way are they like the French?

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Vikingshadow have you given any thought to working in a different school district or private schooling? Seems like there's a lot of bull**** standards that don't contribute from the effectiveness of your job. Are the costs of living relatively low where you live?

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Vikingshadow have you given any thought to working in a different school district or private schooling? Seems like there's a lot of bull<del>****</del> standards that don't contribute from the effectiveness of your job. Are the costs of living relatively low where you live?

I have actually thought about this, but to be honest this is an attitude all across America at this point. And to move would mean leaving my kids behind (my wife and I aren't together anymore) and starting all over, learning new procedures and rules and such. Eventually, when my kids are out of school and moved on, maybe. And, before I give up teaching for good, I will try a different district first. Private school would be GREAT, if they paid a decent enough salary. Most private schools actually pay the same or less than what I get now, from what I understand.

The cost of living here is extremely high right now. A house like mine (3 bedroom, two bath with an attached garage) is going for about 1000/month rent - I pay 450.00. Food and gas have risen incredibly, but fortunately, entertainment venues are about the same as before. I'd say for our little town of about 30,000 in NW Oklahoma, our cost of living is out of control here due to the oil and natural gas boom going on. And salaries aren't raising to match it.

I want to have this discussion because I have seen quite a few misconceptions about the french revolution from several different posters and I feel a discussion would do us well.

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Misconceptions surrounding the French revolution? OK, we can talk about the celebration of Bastille Day, against what actually happened.

I am specifically interested in the notion of french that "lobbed heads off" as being anything like the radical egalitarians. As I have said, I am not big on history. I don't particularly care. I am interested in ideologies though and the notion of Robespierre's "virtue is terror" is quite interesting to me.

__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

I am specifically interested in the notion of french that "lobbed heads off" as being anything like the radical egalitarians. As I have said, I am not big on history. I don't particularly care. I am interested in ideologies though and the notion of "virtue is terror" is quite interesting to me.

Well you can take Mr. Political Potential over in Cambodia. He was a shining example of egalitarianism gone too far. As for this country, I'll defer you too barrel roll.

Can anyone come up with a system within which teachers can lobby for better working conditions (read:better schools) as well as have a voice when their pay/benefits get cut without jeopardizing children's education? Where bad teachers can be removed, and good teachers compensated accordingly/improve other teachers?

Well you can take Mr. Political Potential over in Cambodia. He was a shining example of egalitarianism gone too far. As for this country, I'll defer you too barrel roll.

I'll say this though. Equality can only lead one way, absolute zero.

I wouldn't argue for equality. I'm smarter/more valuable than all you mother****ers and my wage should reflect that

I would only argue for some form of financial recognition that the higher your income, the more you unavoidably rely on other people and external institutions to accrue that wealth. Reliance that is rarely reflected in wages and expenses.

That the wealthy are becoming disproportionately wealthier is an indication that this is not currently appropriately accounted for.

I wouldn't argue for equality. I'm smarter/more valuable than all you mother<del>****</del>ers and my wage should reflect that

I would only argue for some form of financial recognition that the higher your income, the more you unavoidably rely on other people and external institutions to accrue that wealth. Reliance that is rarely reflected in wages and expenses.

That the wealthy are becoming disproportionately wealthier is an indication that this is not currently appropriately accounted for.

I am not sure if I understand 100% the point you are trying to make. Unless you are very very rich I don't see how you materially rely on anything more than anyone else. I think the target of Obama for "wealthy" is above like, $250k or something? At that level up until being very wealthy I don't think you are relying on much more than any other person. Same legislature, same police force, same public everything virtually. What you do have to rely on (investment managers, lawyers, etc.) you likely pay a pretty penny for.

Now if you meaning relying on the people below you at work that is something different. How much you rely on the people is the demand for the job. If I rely on the guy below me to provide me with an in depth analysis (for a merger let's say)that represents months or years of work I will pay him a good amount if it is done well. Compare that to a blue collar job where after a week of training almost anyone could do it, you do not need to rely on that one person so much because he can easily be replaced.

I am not sure if I understand 100% the point you are trying to make. Unless you are very very rich I don't see how you materially rely on anything more than anyone else. I think the target of Obama for "wealthy" is above like, $250k or something? At that level up until being very wealthy I don't think you are relying on much more than any other person. Same legislature, same police force, same public everything virtually. What you do have to rely on (investment managers, lawyers, etc.) you likely pay a pretty penny for.

Now if you meaning relying on the people below you at work that is something different. How much you rely on the people is the demand for the job. If I rely on the guy below me to provide me with an in depth analysis (for a merger let's say)that represents months or years of work I will pay him a good amount if it is done well. Compare that to a blue collar job where after a week of training almost anyone could do it, you do not need to rely on that one person so much because he can easily be replaced.

That wasn't my point and I might make a longer post about it later, but I do believe you've just made an argument in favor of unions.

"It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my *** off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation?"

I wouldn't argue for equality. I'm smarter than all you mother****ers and my wage should reflect that

I would only argue for some form of financial recognition that the higher your income, the more you unavoidably rely on other people and external institutions to accrue that wealth. Reliance that is rarely reflected in wages and expenses.

That the wealthy are becoming disproportionately wealthier is an indication that this is not currently appropriately accounted for.

I don't agree that the higher incomes are more reliant on other people than lower incomes.

But, what I think should be dealt with are not the owners of production but those who partake in the refined piracy of investment. Something about capital gains and all that. Economics really isnt my area, so I'll bow out of the income egalitarianism discussion. Or whatever subject pertaining to income we are having, since you don't like equality either.

Can anyone come up with a system within which teachers can lobby for better working conditions (read:better schools) as well as have a voice when their pay/benefits get cut without jeopardizing children's education? Where bad teachers can be removed, and good teachers compensated accordingly/improve other teachers?

Individuals with balls and resolve. That includes active parents, knowledgeable administrators, and competent teachers.

A ****ty teacher will not compromise the education of a child with at least one parent that cares about their child's education.

__________________--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick HenryI'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker techingWill soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts